jira_get_project_componentsRetrieves all components for a specified Jira project using its project key, enabling component discovery and organization.
Get all components for a specific Jira project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_key | Yes | Jira project key (e.g., 'PROJ', 'ACV2') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / descriptionRemoved value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear without the description. The description adds only that all components are returned, while omitting pagination, permission requirements, or return shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with zero redundant wording. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one fully described parameter, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It could be improved by mentioning the sibling tools it is distinct from, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its pattern and example format, so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond 'specific Jira project', which is the baseline case when schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: get all components for a specific Jira project. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling project-metadata tools like jira_get_project_versions or jira_get_project_issue_types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'for a specific Jira project'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.